Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21 To the contrary, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has argued that the victim was 10 years old and when she was returning from school, the appellant lifted her in his lap, carried her to sugarcane field of Shripal, committed rape and brutally murdered her. She was strangulated by her own scarf which she was wearing on her head at the time of going to school. It is also stated by learned A.G.A that this is a rarest of the rare case where the appellant has murdered 10 years old girl after committing rape therefore the judgment passed by the learned trial court is based on ocular and documentary evidence as well as the recovery of under-garments of the deceased ''X' which were recovered at the pointing out of the accused appellant. Therefore the judgment of the trial court is sustainable and is liable to be upheld.

38. Duryodhan Rout Vs State of Orissa 2014 (86) ACC 574 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:

"11. The trial court convicted the appellant on the basis of the chain of circumstantial evidence available against the accused. It was found that the accused carried the deceased on his cycle at about 4 pm but returned alone at 5p.m. He confessed to have murdered the deceased before Mulia Bhoi (P.W 5) ........ Thus, the accused was last seen with the deceased. There is nothing to indicate that within one hour, there was any scope for anybody else, other than the accused to commit rape and murder of the deceased. The chain of circumstances of the case thereby leads to the hypothesis that the accused and the accused alone was the author of the crime, and therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the accused under Sections 376 (2) (f)/ 302/201 IPC."